Posted
by
timothy
on Friday March 25, 2011 @07:40PM
from the neither-kosher-nor-cricket dept.

cf18 writes "The French chess federation has suspended three top players for violating sporting ethics at a chess olympiad in Siberia last September. The allegation claims while the first member was playing, a second member would watch the game via internet, use software to find the best move, and send it to the third member via SMS. The third member would then sit himself at a particular table in the competition hall. Each table represented an agreed square on the chess board."

You wouldn't need a whole lot of signals. It could very easily be as simple as "yes or no" signals. At this level of play you are far beyond "wondering which piece to move where." Problems are much more likely to present themselves in terms of "does this line lead to some tactical trouble that I don't see?" Chess has some pretty weird aspects that stem from its simplicity.

Possibly, but it's not like it was how they were caught, so does it matter? From TFA:

The alleged strategy was discovered by French chess federation Vice President Joanna Pomian, who spotted a text message on the mobile phone of one of the three players while the French team was involved in a game.

The alleged manipulations came to light because Mr Marzolo did not have a mobile telephone of his own. As a result of financial problems he had been barred by all mobile companies. His telephone had been loaned to him by another senior player for whom he once worked, Joanna Pomian, the vice president of the federation.

During the championship, she accidentally discovered a message from Mr Hauchard in Russia which read: "Hurry up and send the moves." She checked the records of the line and found Mr Marzolo had sent 180 messages to the other accused men during the competition. Most consisted of telephone numbers.

My understanding was that Chess, while significantly less intractable than some games, was still something that you needed a fairly serious computer to play well fast enough to be tournament legal.

Has the state of the art in fact advanced more significantly than I thought, or were these guys sufficiently low-level players that some quite ordinary software was deemed sufficiently likely to be better? I'd assume that you wouldn't take the risk of being caught cheating unless you were fairly confident that it would boost your odds of winnning, which would imply a belief that you were substantially worse than whatever software they had access to.

World-class players usually have a Elo rating around 2000-2500. Rybka (first one I checked) on a quad-core machine is usually rated about 3000 or so. Given that info, I would say it's pretty much plausible that a computer can beat any human player.

They tried that. It almost worked. Almost. The computer won, but not all games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_(chess_computer) [wikipedia.org]
If they try it again, let them pick Magnus Carlsen for the game. I would love to see that match. He would have a good change at not losing all the games. But indeed, processing power and databases have become so fast and big that a computer can win from 99% of all people just by looking at former games...
The first computer-program that actual can really play chess still ha

They don't 'see' the position, they have to do math to get it. Having said that, I do use the computer to practice and analyse my games.

And, pray tell, what do you think the brain does when it "sees" a position? There's no such thing as insight raining down from the heavens like manna. Even your brain needs to first realize how the board looks, then cross-reference that with that else it has seen in the times past and then choose an appropriate action it deems worthwhile.

The approach to steps 2 and 3 may be slightly different, as the human brain most likely uses more heuristics, but in the end, both computers and brains follow the same logi

Deep Blue vs Gary Kasparov was 15 years ago. The state of the art has increased considerably. Plus, computing power has increased even more - Deep Blue was 11 gigaflops, which can be matched by a high-end gaming desktop.

Actually, the main improvement in the quality of chess programs is that they do, actually, discard moves that are blatantly bad, and can sometimes recognize when they've found a particularly good move, and thus stop searching for better ones. So, really, they do "think".

Also, chess masters DO have a database. It's called "the hundreds of games they've played and the thousands of games they've studied". Sure, a computer's is slightly larger, but a chessmaster can identify what made which move important.

I don't disagree with this part. But analyzing logic for chessgames is really new btw. And it isn't they way programs like rybka and fritz win at the moment. It just isn't. I hope someday it will be, but at this point in time it just isn't.

Most of the time I just see the position and know the best move. I have a plan from the start of the game and I will try to force you onto my route. In my limited understanding of chess that is. Anyone over 2200 will beat me. The difference here is the patron recognition. That's the way most human players play chess. And sure, sometimes you don't know/see the best move. In those situations you start to count. In my case, at most 5 moves ahead with maybe, 3 different starting pieces. Really incomparable to t

What is up with you? I've read another stupid comment from you minutes ago.
It's not about boo hoo. It's about the fact that every chessgame in the world that can beat me (and there are heaps of them) use databases. The program doesn't know how to play chess. It only knows the number of wins and losses after a position and move on the board. If you think pointing such a fact out is the same as crying about it, then what the hell are you doing on slashdot?

You can't compare a grandmaster that has a fabulous direct knowledge of 5000-15.000 games to a database that has every important game since the invention of notation in them. My own database at this moment holds over 15 million games, That is far beyond what any human is capable of.

You can't compare a grandmaster that has a fabulous direct knowledge of 5000-15.000 games to a database that has every important game since the invention of notation in them. My own database at this moment holds over 15 million games, That is far beyond what any human is capable of.

"You clearly don't understand how computer chess works. They win because they look ahead very far into the game, not just by having knowledge of previous games."

Not even that. Modern chess programs are a tad more "clever" than that: the difference is not how "far" they can look ahead (that's a trivial problem only too CPU intensive to be currently tractable) but how far they *don't* look ahead, that is, how cleverly they can throw away movement branches, so they don't expend time computing them based on st

Millions? Fritz and Rybka are lucky to get 11 moves ahead if you let it run for hours! Millions of moves into the future is really bullshit. Not totally though, because in 1 thing you are right. If the database runs out they tend to try every move yes. But show me a computer and chess program that can think 14 moves ahead within 1 hour... You can't because they don't exist.

OK - you're either fantastically stupid or you're just pretending not to understand him (which is also fantastically stupid). Obviously he didn't mean a chain of moves 1,000,000 moves long. He meant the computers consider millions of individual moves. Which they do. Some of those moves might be 10 moves away, the bulk of them will be much closer. And you, despite obviously doing some Googling, apparently haven't given up on the idea that consulting a database is in any way the prime technique a computer chess program uses (beyond the opening).

All in all, this article has had some of the stupidest, most depressing Slashdot comments I've ever seen. It's like reading the comments on a Youtube video.

"At the same tournament in 2004, Aronian played two Fischer Random Chess games against the Dutch computer chess program The Baron, developed by Richard Pijl. Both games ended in a draw. It was the first ever man against machine match in Fischer Random Chess."

"The chess program Shredder, developed by Stefan Meyer-Kahlen from DÃ¼sseldorf, Germany, played two games against ZoltÃn AlmÃsi from Hungary; Shredder won 2-0."

You do realize that the computer event is between computers? There is no human playing there.
A draw isn't a win and Kahlen and Arinian are no Magnus.
I didn't know however about 'The baron' and I am going to look into that. Sounds very interesting.

You miss the point. There were GM players at the early tournaments, and the guys who won them played computers and either drew or lost. At later tournaments Rybka dominated among the computers, so it as at least as strong as the earlier ones that won or drew against very good players.

So your claim that a 2000-2100 player would beat Rybka at Fischer Random is just more bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about, as you've demonstrated over and over again. I'm not replying to you any more.

They do both (at leas Deep Blue did IIRC). Look at databases and calculated moves ahead.

I'd be interested what would happen if they added another row or two to the chess board, who would cope better, the human or the computer (I really don't know).

Chess is a rather limited game compared to something like a full-size Go board. With board games, you could increase the size to a point (which is still outstandingly small relatively) where it becomes prohibitive for a classical computer to both calculate or ev

There are chess players that are specialised playing chess against computers. They are supposedly better than most computers/applications. But that's different than playing any human chess player. So I think it's quite likely that a computer could beat a grandmaster if he thought he was playing a human. And don't forget that there were two others that could e.g. discard some computer moves. That said, that's what I heard in college, and that's already 10 years (!) ago.

"But processors are now so powerful that no human stands a chance of winning a match. I asked Carlsen if he would be interested in a Deep Blue-type contest, and he said no -- it would discourage him. Among the chess elite, the idea of challenging a computer has fallen into the realm

I would be fascinated to know whether there is a difference, and how large a difference, between how well people can identify computer players and how well they think that they can...

Given the amount of game-studying undertaken by people sufficiently advanced in chess to actually have an opinion, it'd be pretty tricky to blind such a test properly; but I just have to wonder whether a 'weird computer move I can't understand' would be described in completely different terms by somebody who thinks that ther

The last big Machine-Man match was in 2006 which was Kramnik against Deep Fritz. Wikipedia says the following about the hardware: "Deep Fritz version 10 ran on a computer containing two Intel Core 2 Duo CPUs (a Xeon DC 5160 3 GHz processor with a 1333 MHz FSB and a 4MB L2 Cache)". Kramnik lost this match. Imagine what a $500 computer now would do. (Plus chess engines have improved a lot as well.)

Just try yourself. The best chess engine currently is free (as in beer): Houdini. Furthermore, you need

According to the article in the Independent (cited in another post about 10 min. before yours), it was actually movements between the tables that conveyed the moves. The confederate receiving the text would stand by the table corresponding to b3, for example, then move to the table corresponding to b4, signifying that the computer's move was b3-b4.

It's very easy. There are 64 squares on a chessboard, so if you have 64 chairs you can just sit in one of the 64 chairs and that's all it takes. With less chairs, you can do other things if needed: cross your legs or don't, lean back or don't, and so on. Just crossing your legs and leaning back cuts the number of chairs required down to 16, and that's assuming that you actually need to account for every single square, which you probably don't actually need to do in a real game.

Now if you're thinking that a mere board location doesn't always tell you what piece to put there (depending on the current arrangement) that's accounted for by the fact that these guys actually do know how to play chess so they can decide on the best move themselves after being directed to the proper square to land on.

It must have looked like wizards' chess. Ron sacrifices himself so Harry can checkmate whilst reminding Hermione not to move.

According to TFA, this cheat is discovered by their own federation, and disclosed so at least these cheaters can be considered as violator of their own ethics and the rest of the French chess players on that level won't have a bad reputation or leave a doubt in future events.

It's wise, and also fortunate, that they solved this problem in house.

I enjoy a good game of chess myself, on occasion. However, at the top level, chess is populated almost entirely by gigantic douchebags. I'm not surprised cheating went on. Look at some of Bobby Fischer's early matches. And hey, Kasparov isn't above cheating, either. His opponent didn't say anything because she knew he'd use his reputation to destroy her and anything she said.

"An interesting example of taking back moves at the highest level of OTB chess occurred recently at the elite 1994 Linares super tournament. It's claimed that there is video tape showing that PCA World Champion Garry Kasparov, while playing Judit Polgar, moved a knight to a square which would have cost him the exchange. Apparently, even though he had released the piece, he picked it up again and moved it to another square and went on to win the game." Link to more [controltheweb.com].

Bobby Fischer, the greatest American player ever, idolized Hitler and hated Jewish people, and cheered 9/11 on his radio show. Sample quote: "This is a wonderful day. Fuck the United States. Cry, you crybabies! Whine, you bastards! Now your time is coming." Don't think he was alone in the chess world, either, he had a lot of friends: as Gudmundur G. ThÃrarinsson, the man who arranged the famous "Cold War" match against Spassky in Iceland, said at Fischer's funeral, "In the fullness of time, history will judge the United States harshly for its treatment of Robert James Fischer."

I leave with this piece about chess, written in the 1500s."Chess is certainly a pleasing and ingenious amusement, but it seems to have one defect, which is that it is possible to have too much knowledge of it, so that whoever would excel in the game must give a great deal of time to it, as I believe, and as much study as if he would learn some noble science or perform well anything of importance; and yet in the end, for all his pains, he only knows how to play a game. Thus, I think a very unusual thing happens in this, namely that mediocrity is more to be praised than excellence."

I leave with this piece about chess, written in the 1500s."Chess is certainly a pleasing and ingenious amusement, but it seems to have one defect, which is that it is possible to have too much knowledge of it, so that whoever would excel in the game must give a great deal of time to it, as I believe, and as much study as if he would learn some noble science or perform well anything of importance; and yet in the end, for all his pains, he only knows how to play a game. Thus, I think a very unusual thing happ

We don't have overpopulation, we are well within the carrying capacity of this world. And with population growth leveling off everywhere, we'll also stay within it.

starvation,

As I said, famine has been ended in industrialized countries. It still occurs in developing ones like it did here, and for the same reason: their technology - applied science - hasn't gotten good enough yet.

war,

War has been with us as long as there has been humans, and likely before, judgi

"Where cultural progress is genuinely successful and ills are cured, this progress is seldom received with enthusiasm. Instead, they are taken for granted and attention focuses on those ills that remain."
-- Odo Marquard, Philosopher

Oh really?I'm pretty sure you're a troll but I'll play anyway. If you think:-Living your entire life in servitude-Having to work while sick because there is no such "sick time" (which would probably kill you even though simple rest would have helped)-Turning to prayer to solve every problem you can't understand (which is basically all of them)-Knowledge being sequestered by the wealthy simply because books were hard to make-and everyone was too busy dealing with their own food, illness and wild animals to

People will PAY EXTRA to cheat depriving themselves of any glory in accomplishment... for the empty bragging rights that come with having something you didn't earn, and which has no inherent real world value.

People will PAY EXTRA to cheat depriving themselves of any glory in accomplishment... for the empty bragging rights that come with having something you didn't earn, and which has no inherent real world value.

But they still do it in droves.

Not sure what reality you frequent, but that's popular in any game that has competition and even most that don't. (solitare for example.)

People will PAY EXTRA to cheat depriving themselves of any glory in accomplishment... for the empty bragging rights that come with having something you didn't earn, and which has no inherent real world value.

But they still do it in droves.

The accomplishment being clicking on mobs until your finger falls off? Just saying. It's a time waster no matter how you play it. Not that there's anything wrong about that.

Chess might be a game to someone who doesn't understand it. To most serious chess-players this isn't a game. Sure chess in it self is a game. But when you are studying openings for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, when you have spend weeks analysing every game your opponent has played to give you that edge when the match is, so you might be able to get that last win you need for your grandmaster or international or regular master title... only to find out later that your opponent was a cheating son of a bitch

Neh, when you play it casual it is a game. Just like jogging once a year isn't a sport. When you start training, when you enter competition, you are doing a sport. In Dutch we call these non-physical sports "denksport" that would translate to thinkingsport. A word every language should have.

It's not whether you are taking it serious or not, it's that the word "sport", in common usage, applies to physical activity.

When chess fans use it, they are just trying to latch on to the popularity and good connotations of the term. Some English-speaking players have taken to calling these intellectual games "mind sports", which is just stupid.

There's not a need for a new word because "game" accurately describes what it is. There are other qualifiers like "tournament chess", "professional chess", "competitive chess", etc. that serve the same purpose without the bogus appeal to sports.

Neh that isn't the issue. The issue is that for one reason or another English doesn't have a word for thinking sports, where practically all other languages do. It's a shortcoming of English and specifically a shortcoming of the English 'sport'. Although it isn't really English, but Americanish.

Sport means athletic activity. You know, under the Yellow Light in the Big Room? Healthy stuff. What you're getting at is a game. All sports are games, but not all games are sports. Honestly, given the stigma attached to athletes in intellectual communities, I'm surprised anyone wants "sport" attached to "thinking" at all!

Like I mentioned earlier. Your definition is just wrong. One of the 'sports' I use to do was Sanda. Compare that to football and you can't call football a serious sport. Or baseball. Or basketball. But luckily for the people that haven't been raised in the US, a thinking sport or mind sport is something really normal. Almost every language has word for it. In the end the difference between a game or a sport, is the effort that is put in by the guy/girl doing it and the way they look at. Is it just for relax

I say we should let Barry Bonds and his ilk shoot up steroids or whatever they like and leave them the hell alone.

For professional sports like football and baseball, cycling and the like, I think that's a very interesting idea.

I for one throught football was much more interesting in the days of the Oakland Raiders. Football (at least) is a "thug" sport that involves violence as a major part of the play. I say let the players use whatever gives them the edge.

Now, having someone burgle the coach's office for the play-book, or crack the crypto on the wireless com the opposing team is using during the game, that's not

Grow up, get over it, find a grown up activity where cheating gets you punched in the throat.

"Grown up activities" that intellectually mature individuals participate in generally don't involve getting "punched in the throat", even for cheating. That's not how intellectually mature individuals deal with such situations.

I completely agree. And while you mention it, anyone who has ever played chess in a semi-serious fashion will be able to tell you that a lot of girls dig guys with big brains. And not a few of them are hot. And a lot of them play the game and are good at it (read: "smart").

"If two gods were to play, white would forever win. This we *do* know as indisputable fact."

Despite your trolling, what is a known fact is that no, we don't know that. We still really don't know if chess is a first-mover-wins or not (i.e.: it's like tic-tac-toe -or even it might be the case that chess is a second-mover-wins game).

What a bunch of bull shit. A 2000 player will never, ever, ever loose from a 1450 rated guy. The only time that this happens is when that 1450 guy is heavily underrated, maybe due to a lack of games. Anyone playing chess on competition level will just know that either you are lying or you aren't telling the whole story.